In September 2002 Maher Arar was detained at New York's JFK Airport on the grounds that he was a suspected terrorist. At the time Maher, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada.American officials sent him to Syria were he was tortured and held in prison for a year. When he eventually returned to Canada (avoiding US air space) he was acquitted of all charges in a special hearing and awarded 10 million dollars in compensation.
However, the US government refuses to clear his name and he remains on the no-fly list. Thus, when asked to appear before a joint committee of the House of Representatives he was denied permission to enter the USA and had to appear via a video link from Ottawa. The episode is reported on the front page of today's Toronto Star [U.S. leaders apologize to Arar].
Republicans joined with Democrats yesterday to offer Maher Arar something he has never received from the Bush administration – an apology for the U.S. role in wrongly detaining him, then sending him to Syria where he was tortured.Canadians are outraged at the behavior of the Bush administration. There's no reason to keep persecuting a man who has been found innocent in Canadian courts. Doesn't the Bush administration have any respect for the legal procedures of their closest allies?
More than five years after his nightmare began, Arar received the apologies from congressmen as far apart on the ideological spectrum as possible in Washington, even if they differed widely on the value and legality of the Bush administration's practice of "extraordinary rendition" of terror suspects.
The surprise was the reaction of California Republican Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative who defended the rendition program, but also offered heartfelt apologies to Arar and said that he should be compensated.
"I join in offering an apology and I wish our government could join me in doing this officially," he said.
"When we make a mistake, we should own up to it."
He said the fact that the administration blocked Arar's personal appearance was evidence of "an arrogance that I don't like to see in our government.
"It only adds insult to injury," he said. "You should be let off the list, compensated and allowed to come here and tell your story."
But the Bush administration has not backed down from its story that Arar was deported, and it has not explained why he was sent to Syria when he asked to be allowed to return to Canada where his family and livelihood awaited.
Besides continuing to bar Arar from the country, the administration is working to block his lawsuit in a New York court.
The appeal will be heard next month.
It's clear enough. Not even news. Just one more clear piece of evidence the Bush administration has absolutely no conscience and absolutely no balls. Whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe man was tortured, thanks to their vicious, uncaring stupidity. They won't face it, won't own up to it, won't apologize. Ever. Won't even have the mere decency to take him off the list. Apparently, their political calculus, and protecting their own cowardly, flabby asses is more important to them than simple justice.
If Arar ever gets an apology from a US administration, it will have to be the next one. Bush and company just don't have the cojones to admit when they're wrong. Never have, never will.
I am baffled about having him remain on the no-fly list; but not so much on the lawsuit part. They are blocking that because of the disovery phase of the trial.
ReplyDeleteThey should at least offer to settle out of court.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteYou asked 'Doesn't the Bush administration have any respect for the legal procedures of their closest allies?'
No. Why should they? They certainly don't have any respect for the legal procedures in the US.
I wonder how much of the response and apology by Republican congress members is driven by an obvious opportunity to distance themselves from the increasingly-unpopular Bush administration?
ReplyDeleteYes, Bush et al. are dickheads. But how sincere are these reactions from people who supported Bush et al. fairly recently, but are now faced with a potential problem in the form of their association with el Presidente?